Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[DaleDark]

Originally Posted by Chaka

your reply to this



was this




so I wrote this



I am just letting you know WHY one would assume this after watching the new release. It was a fair logical assumption. To me the motion enhancements far outweigh the grain removal and if you cannot notice that, then there is a problem.

Logical or otherwise, its a general assumption on my over-all likes/dislikes without any knowledge of what my likes/dislikes are, even though I have illustrated my preferences to the contrary (which you have chosen to ignore).

BTW, I have a set w/ motion enhancement features (which are only ever used to watch sports) and theres nothing in this new BD that comes even close to looking like that.

[Bill Hunt]

Let me make another agument for the importance of proper, careful digital remastering...

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that no one has touched the original elements - that even if you don't like this digital master, the film negative still exists untouched. How many films in the history of cinema - even just Hollywood cinema history - have been lost to time? The prints were cut, trashed, have deteoriated or been misplaced completely? A HUGE portion of the films made before 1930 simply no longer exist. I'm sure Robert could chime in with the number.

Who knows how many of our favorite films today will simply be lost 100 years from now? There are many beloved classics with negatives in DIRE need of restoration and preservation right now, and in a tough economy, film restoration is one of the first things that stops happening. It becomes much less of a priority for the studios. So what happens when those prints are lost or badly damaged - and I assure you if it's happened before it will happen again - and there's no one left alive who even remembers what they looked like?

My point is, it is ENTIRELY possible that, as we move fully into an all-digital world, some of these digital masters will end up being the ONLY surviving versions of our favorite films. So isn't it important get them right?

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Let me make another agument for the importance of proper, careful digital remastering...

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that no one as touched the original elements - that even if you don't like this digital master, the film negative still exists untouched. How many films in the history of cinema - even just Hollywood cinema history - have been lost to time? The prints were cut, trashed, have deteoriated or been misplaced completely? A HUGE portion of the films made before 1930 simply no longer exist. I'm sure Robert could chime in with the number.

Who knows how many of our favorite films today will simply be lost 100 years from now? There are many beloved classics with negatives in DIRE need of restoration and preservation right now, and in a tough economy, film restoration is one of the first things that stops happening. It becomes much less of a priority for the studios. So what happens when those prints are lost or badly damaged - and I assure you if it's happened before it will happen again - and there's no one left alive who even remembers what they looked like?

My point is, it is ENTIRELY possible that, as we move fully into an all-digital world, some of these digital masters will end up being the ONLY surviving versions of our favorite films. So isn't it important get them right?

I could not agree more.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by retablo

You CAN lose. Instead, pick up the original blu for even less - save money AND get the more film-like transfer. Predator never had vibrant colors. What used to be a grimy and gritty jungle movie is not a colorful smeary circus romp.

I find it ironic that fanboys complain about every single detail if filmmakers change just ONE little thing on a superhero's costume, or his origin etc... but have no problems when the look and feel of an entire film is changed into something that it never was nor was ever supposed to be. Hypocritical to say the least....

But the film ''makers ''didn't have anything to do with this transfer.BY film makers, you mean the director? He had noting to do with this mess. This is all foxes doing. They listened to the grain haters and gave in. We want a film like transfer because it was filmed,on film, get it? If its a cgi film, thats what i want it to look like. however i don't want a film based movie to look like a cgi movie. What would make everyone happy is give us blu-rays with lots of detail and grain left in and you and others can use all the dnr you want on your tv or bd player,just leave the disc alone!
You do understand any ,and i mean any amount of dnr applyed ,you will lose detail because dnr technology takes grain out. How many time does one have to be told part of film contains grain,its the nature of the beast. understand were talking about films that are pre digital,from the 30s,40s,50s,60s 70s 80s.

[tvine2000]

Were also dealing with a genaration that really doesn't know what film looks like. All they know is that video game look.I suppose thats how they want everything to look. Or that look out your window look. Everything has to be colorful,sharp etc in hd.Thats not what blu-ray is about. Its about detail or however the movie was ''filmed''. Also as good as dvd was in its time,with blu-ray[hd] you do have to get use to '' THE LOOK'' of hd. At least some do. Bill hunt is right about a lot of things,and he talked about the fact there is no standard when doing blu-ray mastering and some people just do what they want. Not only is a standard needed but then these people need to be trained on using these tools such as dnr,or ee.

All i know is SONY is doing it,and a few other studio are doing it right,all studios should do it right,for the sake of the format.

[jeffrow]

This is the best looking blu-ray in months! I dont see what the problem is! Get to tha Choppa!!!

[Q?]

Originally Posted by jeffrow

This is the best looking blu-ray in months! I dont see what the problem is! Get to tha Choppa!!!

What size is your TV?

[jeffrow]

Originally Posted by Q!

What size is your TV?

Q i just said that to get people going. I havent seen this version yet. It just driving me crazy everyone arguing over it. I wish people could make their opinion and thats it. So im sick of reading why this guy is wrong over the other guy. I feel like getting bashed.

[Daredevil666]

@Bill Hunt, agree with most of you post, I just think that each movie have it's own rules, and that Predator will be problematic, whoever tackle it on the remastering stage. I'm not sure a standart can be met, if the source is problematic. I have a feeling Aliens will get the same debate, if not hotter.

I'm content with the new version of Predator. That's just my aesthetic. It doesn't mean I agree with what was done with Patton, which was clearly another can of worms. I mean, I didn't like the Godfather remaster. I felt the first two were recolored, with clipped whites on top, to match the third one aesthetic. Again it's just my take on it, as obviously, many people enjoyed these remasters as they are. I'm also certain that whatever the end results, it was dictated by the source and the state of the negative.

To Cliff, yeah, they got DNR heavy, but I think if it was the same thing as before, just with a better encode, people would still be complaining. I would love if someone did interview the people involved in this new remaster thought.

I'm more shocked by the way Where Eagles Dare look on Blu, just to give a point of reference.

[Bishop_99]

I haven't posted in this thread in a while but since the movie was released, I thought I would ask my original question once again. I have the 2008 version and I don't plan on buying the new edition unless it goes down to about 5 bucks, just so that I can have the special features as my original Predator was the VHS.


Like I said earlier in this thread, DNR was heavily applied and it changed the look of the movie, as if it was shot digitally. That was never my original argument. What I did notice, and continue to notice with the majority of the screenshots is that details are better defined in the new version. I was told that this was solely do to boosting the contrast. Now my question is this, since they used a higher bitrate AVC encode this time around, isn't it possible that before the DNR was applied, this new version was able to capture more detail than the previous low bit mpeg-2 version? Considering how much DNR was applied here, detail shouldn't be more visible in the new encode, they should have been wiped cleaned. To me, this doesn't look like the Gladiator HD Cable vs Blu-ray comparison, that even though the Blu-ray version had heavy amounts of DNR applied and then EE to artificially sharpen it, the HD version clearly had more detail. Same with Apollo 13 on HD DVD and the Blu-ray version, the contrast boost didn't increase detail in the BD version.

I'm not saying that the new version is great because there is no grain. The grain in the original doesn't bother me and truthfully, the original Blu-ray is mainly grainy in the beginning, the rest of the film looks good. The original Mpeg-2 version has other problems like macro blocking and aligning which looks like it has been solved in this new encode. But with the heavy amount of DNR applied to the new release, shouldn't there be drastically less detail here than in the original release? Am I wrong to think that the new encode and the higher bit rates captured more detail that the mpeg-2 version couldn't and that's why this heavily DNR'd version doesn't really loose much detail?

I think the main argument is that the DNR completely removed the grain and changed the entire look of the film. I understand that argument and I will probably agree with it if I ever see the new version. But based on the screenshots, I can't see much lack of detail with this release through the heavy amounts of DNR unlike the clear loss of detail with the screenshots of the first Lord Of The Rings.


Case in point, look at these two screenshots. On the new version you can see more wrinkle lines, more pimples and the eyebrow hairs are better defined on the new release than they were on the mpeg-2 version. So much DNR should have erased all of that in the new version.

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[nolfoc]

does anyone have a screenshot of Predator himself? i would like to see the comparision btw those 2

[Kenneth M]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Let me make another agument for the importance of proper, careful digital remastering...

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that no one has touched the original elements - that even if you don't like this digital master, the film negative still exists untouched. How many films in the history of cinema - even just Hollywood cinema history - have been lost to time? The prints were cut, trashed, have deteoriated or been misplaced completely? A HUGE portion of the films made before 1930 simply no longer exist. I'm sure Robert could chime in with the number.

Who knows how many of our favorite films today will simply be lost 100 years from now? There are many beloved classics with negatives in DIRE need of restoration and preservation right now, and in a tough economy, film restoration is one of the first things that stops happening. It becomes much less of a priority for the studios. So what happens when those prints are lost or badly damaged - and I assure you if it's happened before it will happen again - and there's no one left alive who even remembers what they looked like?

My point is, it is ENTIRELY possible that, as we move fully into an all-digital world, some of these digital masters will end up being the ONLY surviving versions of our favorite films. So isn't it important get them right?

So much truth to that.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Because most of "these guys" aren't there anymore, and a lot of the people who are left, while very nice people, don't really get it. It's like trying to explain anamorphic to them all again in the very early days of DVD. The other problem is that most people at the studios stopped paying attention to the online enthusiast forums a long time ago - a few hang in there, but the Internet silliness associated with the format war was the final straw that drove most away for good, and I can't say I blame them. The rest are so new to the business that they never paid attention to the Internet to begin with, and wouldn't know the names of any of the sites or forums if you quizzed them. They just think and operate in a different world. To the degree that they're even aware of the "fan" or "enthusiast" community at all, it's because they've discovered the marketing value of "the geeks at Comic-Con." It's just how it is these days.

Bill, I read your latest rant.

You mentioned Marty’s keynote (pro transparency to the original theatrical look) and the fact that many studio executives were present. You are correct with respect to the attendees and in regards to the current topic, I know that Mike Dunn had at least 3 marketing V.P.s there with him…. could have been more, but those were who I recognized.

I’m nearly positive that all three, (John Schad, Jennifer Chai and Vincent Marcais) have been with Fox since before the Patton unhappiness which RAH expressed on your site. Heck I think Jen (Senior Vice President, Marketing) has been with Fox since 2000. Vince is a long timer. John came in sometime ’06.

Since they all heard Marty’s keynote, might it not be a good idea for you to contact one of them and set up a meeting to discuss your concerns? I suggest you also take a tech person with at the very minimum, long DVD compression experience (better yet, some knowledge of DVO Grain or Correct DRS) because I’m sure they will have at least the same for consultation. “Turning the DNR knob up to 10” just won’t cut it in this sort of meeting because I’m told by someone whose opinion I respect and has seen the Blu-ray, that there are some scenes in which very little grain reduction was applied.

As far as I know, the post house which Fox used for the mastering and encoding of Predator has had very little turnover as it pertains to the *in the trench* work. Seems to me, everyone involved knew exactly what they were doing and what we have here is difference in philosophy between the content provider and some fans of the film who post online.

I also disagree with your premise that with this edition, Fox was responding to complaints of grain as expressed on the internet regarding the first version.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Let me make another agument for the importance of proper, careful digital remastering...

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that no one has touched the original elements - that even if you don't like this digital master, the film negative still exists untouched. How many films in the history of cinema - even just Hollywood cinema history - have been lost to time? The prints were cut, trashed, have deteoriated or been misplaced completely? A HUGE portion of the films made before 1930 simply no longer exist. I'm sure Robert could chime in with the number.

Who knows how many of our favorite films today will simply be lost 100 years from now? There are many beloved classics with negatives in DIRE need of restoration and preservation right now, and in a tough economy, film restoration is one of the first things that stops happening. It becomes much less of a priority for the studios. So what happens when those prints are lost or badly damaged - and I assure you if it's happened before it will happen again - and there's no one left alive who even remembers what they looked like?

My point is, it is ENTIRELY possible that, as we move fully into an all-digital world, some of these digital masters will end up being the ONLY surviving versions of our favorite films. So isn't it important get them right?

Your point is right on the mark!To bad the movie industry doesn't feel the same way. An industry filed will I,ME,MINE PEOPLE.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by nolfoc

does anyone have a screenshot of Predator himself? i would like to see the comparision btw those 2

In this link are multiple pics:

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/art...ay-comparison/

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Bill, I read your latest rant.

You mentioned Marty’s keynote (pro transparency to the original theatrical look) and the fact that many studio executives were present. You are correct with respect to the attendees and in regards to the current topic, I know that Mike Dunn had at least 3 marketing V.P.s there with him…. could have been more, but those were who I recognized.

I’m nearly positive that all three, (John Schad, Jennifer Chai and Vincent Marcais) have been with Fox since before the Patton unhappiness which RAH expressed on your site. Heck I think Jen (Senior Vice President, Marketing) has been with Fox since 2000. Vince is a long timer. John came in sometime ’06.

Since they all heard Marty’s keynote, might it not be a good idea for you to contact one of them and set up a meeting to discuss your concerns? I suggest you also take a tech person with at the very minimum, long DVD compression experience (better yet, some knowledge of DVO Grain or Correct DRS) because I’m sure they will have at least the same for consultation. “Turning the DNR knob up to 10” just won’t cut it in this sort of meeting because I’m told by someone whose opinion I respect and has seen the Blu-ray, that there are some scenes in which very little grain reduction was applied.

As far as I know, the post house which Fox used for the mastering and encoding of Predator has had very little turnover as it pertains to the *in the trench* work. Seems to me, everyone involved knew exactly what they were doing and what we have here is difference in philosophy between the content provider and some fans of the film who post online.

I also disagree with your premise that with this edition, Fox was responding to complaints of grain as expressed on the internet regarding the first version.

Yeah, well... I guess I'll try to add Fox to the list. There isn't enough time in the day for all the similar "consulting" I'm attempting to do right now, much as was the case when I was working to convince all the studios to go anamorphic with DVD back in 1997 and '98. So what's new? In any case, efforts like this are best discussed off-forum as, to the degree that I'm ALREADY trying to do a lot of this kind of thing, it's all done off the record. So we shouldn't be talking about (or commenting on) it here.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

In this link are multiple pics:

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/art...ay-comparison/

Virtually everyone of those shots have so much boosted brightness that the blacks are totally drowned out. Look at the shot of the Predator turning towards Dutch. In the original it looks like twilight as it's supposed to be and in the new version it looks like it's the middle of the day. Also, the Predator's blood has gone from glowing green in the original version to some type of toxic waste infested green in the new version. These shots just further solidify that the 2008 version is superior.

[28BlusLater]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Virtually everyone of those shots have so much boosted brightness that the blacks are totally drowned out. Look at the shot of the Predator turning towards Dutch. In the original it looks like twilight as it's supposed to be and in the new version it looks like it's the middle of the day. Also, the Predator's blood has gone from glowing green in the original version to some type of toxic waste infested green in the new version. These shots just further solidify that the 2008 version is superior.

I like the original look of the film, gritty, and dark. I know it sounds small, but it's true, tampering with the brightness and darkness of the film can change the atmosphere of the entire movie. I'm very happy with the 2008 Blu-Ray, I'm just going to keep it and not get the newer one.

But to each their own. It's subjective. Some people may like seeing brighter colors and the colors being more vibrant, and others may like just seeing it the way it was intended when it originally came out. Not one way is right and not one way is wrong. It's all opinion.

[Xenomorph]

Tastes great....
Less filling........

Tastes great!!...
Less filling!!.......

TASTES GREAT!!!


You get the idea..

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Virtually everyone of those shots have so much boosted brightness that the blacks are totally drowned out. Look at the shot of the Predator turning towards Dutch. In the original it looks like twilight as it's supposed to be and in the new version it looks like it's the middle of the day. Also, the Predator's blood has gone from glowing green in the original version to some type of toxic waste infested green in the new version. These shots just further solidify that the 2008 version is superior.

Again opinion.

Look at all the grain dot specs in the sky in the 1st shot.

I like the cleaner look sky better.